He introduced Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 in the U.S. House.

yea ok he based his legislation on a FB poll

At least we can rest assured the debate has been settled.

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

And the crowd REPUBLICANS AND THE NRA go crazy

And for the 10000 thousand time we will be told what he ment to say

If Trump can actually get some new restrictions on acquiring firearms my guess is that you will still be whining about something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very intuitive. There is no shortage, eh comrade?

Fox News told him to say it.

Seems this post went over your head

Trump made the statement

2a guys flipped out

Trumps backed away from statement #1

So if pointing out the flip flops from his mouth is just whining clearly you don't care what this man say's or what he does

Your catching on quick

I'm beginning to wonder if you, your version of Fox News, and Trump are working in tandem. Y'all say one thing at a given time and contradict it at another time.

Sounds like a conspiracy . . . Y'all really want to disinform us to create mass confusion and then sneak in and bring in a new world order, don't ya?

Foxnews told Trump to support the idea of confiscating legally-acquired property, before the individual has received due process? That's what you're saying?

Of course the 2A people went berserk. If today, we can take away your second amendment rights without giving you the benefit of due process, maybe tomorrow someone can take away another constitutional right of yours, without due process, maybe freedom of speech? Or protection from cruel and unusual punishment?

I don't like guns being in the hands of weird people. But I don't like the idea of ignoring the parts of the Constitution we don't happen to like at the moment, either. Neither should you. Because if we can ignore it when we feel like it, then it serves no purpose.

Russian politician Alexander Torshin said his ties to the NRA provided him access to Donald Trump — and the opportunity to serve as a foreign election observer in the United States during the 2012 election.

These revelations come amid news that the FBI is investigating whether Torshin, the deputy governor of the Bank of Russia, illegally funneled money to the NRA to assist the Trump campaign in 2016,

QUOTE=scottw;1138130]PARKLAND, Fla. — Broward County deputies received at least 18 calls warning them about Nikolas Cruz from 2008 to 2017, including concerns that he "planned to shoot up the school" and other threats and acts of violence before he was accused of killing 17 people at a high school.

The warnings, made by concerned people close to Cruz, came in phone calls to the Broward County Sheriff's Office, records show. At least five callers mentioned concern over his access to weapons, according to the documents. None of those warnings led to direct intervention.

In February 2016, neighbors told police that they were worried he “planned to shoot up the school” after seeing alarming pictures on Instagram showing Cruz brandishing guns.

About two months later, an unidentified caller told police that Cruz had been collecting guns and knives. The caller was “concerned (Cruz) will kill himself one day and believes he could be a school shooter in the making,” according to call details released by the Sheriff's

My statement

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .. they are now blaming everyone else . To insulate them from the laws they supported which gave assistance and legal standing for Cruz to have what he had .... law enforcement was toothless until he committed a crime ...

And I was told UMMMMN NO they would not if they took Cruzs guns based on a callers concerns ... then RI passes a Red flag measure to head off possible shooters and the response was as suggestec

Told him to change his mind

Gotcha.

Well if they told him to change his imnd, I would be in agreement. Due process has to come before we strip constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms from US citizens. The feds can't take something away, and then we petition to get that freedom back.

Due process must come first. The constitution could not be more clear. You disagree?

It's a slippery slope ...due process ignored the Fla shooter ,,, I know in Mass a 209a protection order or admission to a detox voluntary or in voluntary gets a knock at your door to secure all weapons .... it's automatic . You can get them back via Due process ... but they can't just take them based on a unnamed caller or because some thinks your weird..

so whos rights gets priority those of a possible shooter or those of his potential victum's ?..

Be inconvenienced. In court to get your guns back due process

Be inconvenienced because your dead no due process

The possibility of abuse exists that's why we have courts .. reasonable people who have nothing to hide and operate with in the rules won't be effected .

And I don't buy that the freedom to own a gun is absolute. Or with out restriction
Or the fantasy this leads to taking people's guns .... it's just not based in facts

Apparently not for ALL US citizens because we behind enemy lines in the peoples republic of Massachusetts must have had our due process by legislation with regards to owning a piece of plastic known as a bump stock. Most every firearms permit holder got their letter in the mail. I felt like mailing it back to them with a rubber band or a belt loop(seeing how they can accomplish the same effect), but we all know passing the law was not about safety but about optics and rushing to feel good about doing something. And Trump is just like them with his stupid statement about ignoring due process.
There is no shortage of tyrants in this state.
Judges that ignore or make their own interpretations of the Constitution are the ones who are dangerous to our country.

...

Behind enemy lines?

MA is in the bottom third for unemployment, the second lowest firearm death rate of all states, ranked the best schools in the nation etc... etc...

Keep this nonsense up and I'm not going to show you the amazingly tight corners on the giant picture frame I just made.

...a bump stock is not a gun. No different then AR dosn't mean assault rifle.. >>>

so your rights were never violated by the banning of bump stocks

And their rights wouldn't be violated by banning assault weapons either. Even in the Heller case the SC didn't say the government couldn't ban certain types of weapons.

Just wait till some states ban ammunition because they're not guns LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

Property that was attained while legal and then banned and confiscated absolutely DOES violate rights. And if it ever goes to court before a judge that is not a liberal constitutional tyrant, then it would be overturned.




The argument about modern firearms are not what the 2A was for is horsecrap, The British had what the people had, and when they wanted to disarm the people, the revolution began. You can believe whatever you want about what can be banned or should be banned and we are never going to agree apparently. I know what is right and what is wrong. Did a bunch of ranchers armed with AR-15's win a standoff with the feds? yes they did.

If the country goes over the ledge to socialism, that is when you will finally realize you are left with Communism and wonder how it happened.

1) Doesn't mean you can't ban new sales and

2) Doesn't mean you can't add registration requirements and sale transfer requirements onto existing weapons.

Correct
I didn’t say it did

Banning something for future is one thing
Banning it retroactively is another.

States are allowed to put restrictions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is kind of a stretch. Had the Feds wanted to win the standoff, it would have been over it seconds. They didn't want the repercussions of doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not to mention the ranchers were wrong to begin with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this was on fox Tucker Carlson

“Imagine if Barack Obama had said that? ‘Just ignore due process and confiscating guns.’ Obama would have been denounced as a dictator,” Carlson said on Thursday. “Congress would be talking impeachment right now. Someone would be muttering about secession.”

not sure if he is asking why this isn't happening or just for once see's how hypocritical the base is?

Went to see the comments which are very telling and no where on the 1st page of comments was there a critical comment against Trump he was mentioned 1 time here is the comment

What Fiasco. President Trump is battling the Democratic Communist Party, the Rhinos, the push towards a NWO,

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...ke-guns-first/


I am sure they wont see an issue with this one as well ,,Trump praises Chinese president extending tenure 'for life'


“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

this is the part that scares me^^^^

Trump is enamored with dictators and authoritarian regimes. I don't even think he realizes what he's saying.

Did you read it?

So you would be OK with it?

For a lot of people, it is easy to strip away Constitutional Rights. I mean, what's the worst that could happen, right?

Yeh - not hearing much (as we should) about the deeper investigations that need to be done.

So this slippery slope is OK?

We do need a good examination on how to protect rights and balance the need for some people not to have access to firearms (and removal if needed) due to disqualifying events (mental health/Drug Abuse/Criminal Records) and not limit those that are not disqualifying.

The FL shooter Cruz wasn't failed by Due process? The students at MSD were failed by the lack of any ATTEMPT of ANY PROCESS by legal authorities at the local, state, and Federal level.

The reasonable people are the ones that will have their rights curtailed. You CAN support 2A and not own a firearm. Interestingly after the recent hits on the NRA (you know, the killers that caused the MSD shootings) they signed up thousands of new members because it is a fight over Constitutional rights.

Move the discussion from 2A to 1A - how flexible are you in having your speech curtailed?

I do not think it is without restriction, but the default is to allow with certain items to disqualify. But there has been significant calling from Dems and Dem legislators to ban and confiscate.

Due process? Or the lack of implementation of Due Process by legal authorities at the local, state, and Federal level??

Heller also stated the people have the right to the same arms in use in "lawful purpose". So technically, the people could get more advanced systems than currently available.

You are exceptional at Cherry Picking you quotes to broad brush people. You may be even more effective than Spence. :rotf2:

Here we agree

[QUOTE=JohnR;1138733]



You are exceptional at Cherry Picking you quotes to broad brush people. You may be even more effective than Spence. :rotf2:



/QUOTE]

And you are exceptional at refusing to see what you call cherry picked quotes as what they are ...
Actual statements from real people who lead the narrative and sit in postions of power and represent those who have have elected them

If you only look at quotes as only quotes I can see why you have a hard time seeing the picture they paint ... over time